dismissed L-1B Case: Healthcare It

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF V-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 12,2018 
APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANTWORKER 
The Petitioner, a healthcare application development company, seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as its "Project Technical Lead" under the L-1 B nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section I 0 I (a)(! 5)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § J!Ol(a)(IS)(L). The L-IB classification allows a corporation or other legal entity 
(including its aftiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee with "specialized 
knowledge" to work temporarily in the United States. 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish, as required, that the Beneficiary was employed abroad in a managerial, executive, or 
specialized knowledge capacity or that he would be employed in a specialized knowledge capacity in 
the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the denial asserting that the Beneficiary was employed abroad and 
would be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. The Petitioner further 
argues that the Director did not follow the guidance set out in the United States Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) L-1 B adjudications policy memorandum. 1 The Petitioner contends 
that the Director did not examine all of the documentation submitted and thus her decision was based 
on erroneous conclusions of fact. 
Upon de novo review, we lind that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish 
that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge and that he has been and would be employed 
in a specialized knowledge capacity. Therefore, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-IB nonimmigrant visa classification, a qualifying organization must 
have employed the beneficiary "in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized 
1 The Petitioner is referring to USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0111, L-IB Adjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015), 
https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. 
.
Maller of V-. Inc. 
knowledge," for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary 's application for 
admission into the United States. Section 10 I (a)( 15)(L) of the Act. In addition, the . beneficiary 
must seek to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same 
employer or a subsidiary or ani liate thereof in a specialized knowledge capacity. ld. 
A beneticiary is considered to be serving in a capacity involving specialized knowledge with respect to 
a company if the beneficiary has a special knowledge of the company product and its application in 
international markets or has an advanced level of knowledge of processes and procedures of the 
company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(2)(B). 
Specialized knowledge is defined as knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitiOning 
organization's product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests and its 
application in international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge or expertise in the 
organization's processes and procedures. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(D). 
An individual L-1 B classification petition must be accompanied by evidence that ( I) the petitioner 
and the foreign employer of the beneficiary are qualifying organizations; (2) the beneficiary has been 
employed abroad in a position that was managerial, executive, or involved specialized knowledge 
for at least one continuous year in the three years preceding the tiling of the petition; (3) the 
beneficiary is coming to work in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity for the same 
employer or a subsidiary or affiliate of the foreign employer; and (4) the beneficiary's prior 
education, training and employment qualify him or her to perform the intended services in the United 
States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3). 
If. BACKGROUND 
The Petitioner is an 1T company that designs and implements digital solutions for client companies 
that operate in the U.S. healthcare market. In a supporting cover letter, the Petitioner stated that the 
Beneficiary has· been and is currently employed abroad as a "Senior Team Leader," which requires 
"a deep understanding" of the client's business domain - which in this instance is healthcare 
insurance'- and the client's IT infrastructure, including its proprietary web portals and relevant IT 
technologies. The Petitioner claimed that during the Beneficiary's 12 years of employment with 
. the Petitioner's foreign subsidiary, he worked on multiple projects servidng a specific 
client, which resulted in the Beneficiary gaining a "deep understanding" of that client's "business 
processes and needs." 
The Petitioner also noted that the Beneficiary was certified in a project management approach that is 
commonly used in the healthcare IT industry "as the method of choice" and pointed to the 
Beneficiary's "excellent technical knowledge" and eight years of work experience in IT healthcare 
systems and processes. The Petitioner focused on the Beneficiary's "exposure to the client's 
proprietary systems and processes" as a key element of the Beneficiary's work experience in the 
healthcare IT sector,. claiming that his knowledge of the client's IT infrastructure combined with his 
"technical expertise" enable him to execute the duties of the protlered "specialty occupation" 
2 
Mauer of V-. Inc. 
position with the U.S. entity. The Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary's knowledge "can only be 
obtained through extensive prior experience" with the foreign employer. 
Ill. SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 
The primary issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge and whether he has been employed abroad, and will be employed in the 
United States, in a specialized knowledge capacity. If the evidence is insufficient to establish that 
the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, then we cannot conclude that he has been 
employed abroad in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
A beneficiary is deemed to have specialized knowledge if he or she has: ( 1) a "special" knowledge 
of the company product and its application in international markets; or (2) an "advanced" level of 
knowledge of the processes and procedures of the company. Section 214(c)(2)(B) of the Act. In the 
case of a petitioner seeking to employ a beneficiary in a specialized knowledge capacity, eligibility 
may be established by submitting evidence that the beneficiary and the proffered position satisfy 
either prong of the statutory definition. 
Once a petitioner articulates the· nature of the claimed specialized knowledge, it is the weight and 
type of evidence which establishes whether or not the beneficiary actually possesses specialized 
knowledge. We cannot make a factual determination regarding a given beneficiary's specialized 
knowledge if the petitioner does not, at a minimum, articulate with specificity the nature of its 
products and services or processes and procedures, the nature of the specific industry or field 
involved, and the nature of the beneficiary's knowledge. The petitioner should also describe how 
such knowledge is typically gained within the organization, and explain how and when the 
individual beneficiary gained such knowledge. 
_ A. Advanced Knowledge 
In the present matter, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has eight years of experience with 
· healthcare IT "systems and processes," thereby indicating that the Beneficiary has knowledge that is 
"advanced." 
Because "advanced knowledge" concerns knowledge of an organization's processes and procedures, 
the Petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the Beneficiary has knowledge of or 
expertise in the organization's processes and procedures that is greatly developed or further along in 
progress, complexity, and understanding in comparison to other workers in the employer's 
operations. Such advanced knowledge must be supported by evidence setting that knowledge apart 
from the elementary or basic knowledge possessed by others. The petitioner ordinarily must 
demonstrate that a beneficiary's knowledge is not commonly held throughout the particular industry 
and caimot be easily imparted from one person to another. 
'3 
.
Matter (~f V-, Inc. 
Here, the Petitioner claimed that the Beneficiary's key function will be managing communications 
for one of its largest clients. The Petitioner stated that managing the client's communications will 
include the following elements: requirements clarification, progress monitoring, status reporting, 
incident resolution, and user assistance and support. The Petitioner focused on the fact that in his 
current position with the Beneficiary leads the team whose work he will oversee and 
coordinate from his onsite position with the U.S. entity. The Petitioner stated that addressing its 
client's business needs would involve, in part, making changes to and enhancing the client's 
applications and "related business processes." The Petitioner noted that in addition to strong 
technical skills, the proposed U.S. position requires someone with more than three years of 
"extensive experience in software development," at least two years of experience "'engaging with 
business owners and product managers" to manage risks and timelines, and at least two years of 
experience managing delivery of produc.ts and services to customers. 
The Petitioner highlighted the Beneficiary's experience in working with one of its healthcare 
insurance clients for '"a majority of his time," claiming that the Beneficiary gained a "deep 
understanding" of the healthcare .insurance industry, the client's processes and IT infrastructure, and 
"strong technical expertise in relevant technologies." Although the Petitioner broadly referred to the 
Beneficiary's lengthy work experience with a healthcare client's "'proprietary systems and 
processes," it did not identify any specific systems or processes, or establish a nexus between the 
Beneficiary's familiarity with the client's systems and processes and his gaining an "advanced" level 
of knowledge of the Petitioner's or the foreign employer's processes and procedures. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director informed the Petitioner that the record lacked sufficient 
evidence to demonstrate how the Beneficiary's knowledge is "advanced" and further noted that the 
Petitioner did not compare the Beneficiary's knowledge, education, or training to that of others to 
establish that his knowledge is not commonly held within the industry. The Director further noted 
that the Petitioner did not compare and contrast the Beneficiary's duties to others who perform 
similar work or explain why his duties require specialized knowledge. 
Jn response, the Petitioner provided a statement listing the Beneficiary's duty breakdown, which 
indicates that the Beneticiary's current position involves reviewing and clarifying requirements, 
designing and implementing solutions, managing and delivering code, managing and training team 
members, and evaluating new technologies. The Petitioner stated that the senior development 
positions, like the Beneficiary, are responsible for "technical excellence and client-related 
specialized knowledge," and claimed that the Beneficiary has a "diverse background in numerous 
software technologies" and follows the Petitioner's "well established processes and methodologies" 
to define 
and design IT solutions to tit the client's needs. The Petitioner did not specify or describe 
any "processes or methodologies" that the Beneficiary used and will use in the course of his work 
with the current and proposea employers. 
. . 
The Petitioner also claimed that the "combination of technical and business knowledge and 
experience held by [the Beneficiary] are very rare in the industry." We note, however, that the 
Petitioner must support its assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter r~f 
4 
Matter of V-, Inc. 
Chawathe, 25 J&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0)_ Here, the Petitioner does not describe the type of 
knowledge, training, and experience other similarly employed individuals possess within the 
industry, nor does it provide other evidence to support the claim that the Beneficiary's combination 
of knowledge and experience "are very rare in the industry'' Further, the Petitioner claims that 
among the members of the Beneficiary's team, only the Beneficiary has "special working 
knowledge" of the client's use of a specific platform - the IBM WebSphere Portal - and that in 
contrast to other team members, who have knowledge of a specific software tool, only he has "an 
overall knowledge and experience with the client's software architecture, setup and configuration." 
The Petitioner provided an organizational chart, a skills spreadsheet, two completion certificates 
showing that the Beneficiary was certified as an IBM solution developer in the "WebSphere Portal 
8.0" and as a "ScrumMaster," and an opinion letter from an associate IT professor in support of its 
claims. The Petitioner also indicated that one of its supporting documents was a skills comparison 
that ranked each employee's specialized knowledge on a scale of 1-10. 
In the denial decision, the Director reiterated that the burden is on the Petitioner to not only articulate 
the specific nature of the Beneficiary's claimed specialized knowledge, but to also explain how such 
knowledge is necessary to perform the duties assigned to the Beneficiary and to state how the 
Beneficiary gained the knowledge that is claimed to be specialized. The Director determined that 
the Petitioner did not adequately describe how the Beneficiary's knowledge is typically gained 
within the organization and concluded that the Beneficiary's familiarity with his employer's 
methodologies or projects does not equate to an advanced level of knowledge. 
We find that the Petitioner's supporting documents are not sufticient to support the claims put forth 
in the petition. First, we note that the skills comparison spreadsheet, which the Petitioner used as a 
basis for demonstrating the Beneficiary's specialized knowledge, lists employee position titles, but 
does not specify employee names. As the Beneficiary's team has one other senior team leader other 
than the Beneficiary, it is unclear which rankings apply to the Beneficiary as opposed to the team's 
other senior team leader. Furthermore, while the spreadsheet lists rankings for each of nine fields, 
the Petitioner did not explain the ranking system. The two senior team leaders ranked "10" and "8," 
respectively, in four fields- "Leadership," "Client Interactions," "Healthcare IT," and "Hibernate"; 
however, the Petitioner did not describe the factors that contributed to the different rankings which 
would explain how each individual's ranking relates to his level of knowledge. 
The Petitioner also provided an organizational chart, which shows a five-tier hierarchical structure 
with the Beneficiary alongside another senior team leader occupying positions in, the second to 
lowest tier. While the number "5" is included in the square containing the Beneficiary's 
infom1ation, the Petitioner did not explain the significance of that number or clarify how, if at all, the 
number relates to his level of knowledge. The Petitioner also did not clarify why the Beneficiary's 
superior - the director of development - is ranked with a number "4," while a development team 
leader, whose qualifications are below those of the Beneficiary's position, has a ranking of "5," 
which is equal to the Beneftciary. Likewise, it is unclear why the other senior team leader, whose 
job qualifications are the same as those of the Beneficiary, is ranked with a "4," thereby indicating 
that his level of knowledge is below that of the Beneficiary.· 
5 
Matter of V-. Inc: 
Although the Petitioner claimed that there are no employees in the United States or abroad that 
acquired the Beneficiary's level of knowledge "of the company business," there is no evidence that 
the Petitioner's comparison includes senior technical leads within the industry, which likely contains 
similarly employed individuals whose levels of knowledge of their respective clients' processes and 
methodologies are similar to the level of knowledge possessed by the Beneficiary. Further, while 
the Petitioner repeatedly points to the Beneficiary's broad range of knowledge as compared to the 
subordinates in his team, the record does not establish that it is atypical for a senior technical lead 
within the same company or within the industry at large to possess a similar breadth of skills and 
knowledge. 
As properly pointed out in the Director's decision, the Petitioner also did not establish how the 
Beneficiary attained his claimed "advanced" level of knowledge. Despite submitting the two 
certificates described above, the Petitioner did not establish that the certifications were components 
to or prerequisites on a path that led the Beneficiary to gain "advanced" knowledge of the 
employer's processes and procedures. In fact, the Petitioner did not describe the means for gaining 
"advanced" knowledge within the Petitioner's organization or list the specific steps the Beneficiary • took to attain his claimed level of knowledge: 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge of 
technologies, methodologies, and processes and points out that the Director did not cite to published 
decisions, such as Matter ol Penner, l&N Dec. 49 (Comm'r 1982), to support the denial decision. 
We note, however, that the definition of "specialized knowledge" that was in effect at the time of 
Penner was superseded by the 1990 Act. Moreover, the reasoning behind Penner. while still 
applicable, would only serve to· weaken the Petitioner's claims. The Penner decision noted that 
during the course of sub-committee hearings on the bill, the Chairman specifically questioned 
witnesses on the level of skill necessary to qualify under the proposed "L" category. See 1970 
House Report, 1-l.R. No. 91-851. ln response to the Chairman's questions, various witnesses 
responded that the legislation would allow "high-level people," "experts," individuals with "unique" 
skills, and that it would not include "lower categories" of workers or "skilled craft workers." J'vfaller 
ol Penner, 18 l&N at 50 (citing 1-l.R. SubComm'r No. 1 of the Jud. Comm·r, Immigration Act of 
/970: Hearings on HR. 445, 9lst Cong. 210,218,223,240,248 (November 12, 1969)). Reviewing 
the congressional record, the Commissioner declined an expansive reading of the specialized 
knowledge provision to include skilled workers and technicians. In the present matter, the 
Beneficiary's placement at the second to the lowest tier in the foreign entity's organizational chart 
indicates that the Beneficiary was not a top-level employee, but rather, that he was more likely a 
skilled worker. The Petitioner's own reference to the Beneficiary as a "specialty occupation" further 
undermines the claim that the Beneficiary's knowledge rises to an "advanced" level such that would 
merit the visa classificati?n of a specialized kno"':Iedge employee. 
The Petitioner also emphasizes the length of tirrie the Beneficiary has dedicated to working with a 
client that "has multiple proprietary web portals!' However, it is unclear how these characteristics 
ditTer from other senior team leaders whose employers similarly service clients in the healthcare 
6 
.
Matter of V-. !nc. 
industry. Despite relying on the Beneficiary's certification as an "Agile Project Management Serum 
Master" to establish that the Beneficiary attained an "advanced" level of knowledge, the Petitioner's 
claim is undermined by its own acknowledgement that the Agile approach to project management is 
the " [ c] urrent trend" among companies in the healthcare IT industry, thereby indicating that other 
similarly employed senior project leaders likely obtained comparable certifications. 
rn addition, the Petitioner submitted an opinion letter ,,..ritten by Ph.D., an assistant 
IT professor at the who determined that the Beneficiary possesses 
specialized knowledge. users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from 
universities, prol~ssional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. 
Matrer (~('Caron fnl 'f, I 9 I&N Dec. 79 I, 795 (Comm 'r 1988). However, USC IS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding a toreign national's eligibility. The 
submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. 
Id. USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated or is in any way 
questionable. !d. Here, while we do not question finding that the Beneficiary is an 
experienced employee \Vith knowledge of his employer's proprietary platfom1, he 
does not reference the statutory or regulatory definitions of "specialized knowledge" or explain how 
the Beneficiaryls knowledge and experience qualifies him under those definitions. For the reasons 
described above, we find that the Petitioner has not adequately specified the nature of the 
Beneficiary's specialized knowledge or established precisely how the claimed specialized 
knowledge was obtained. opinion letter does not cure these deficiencies. 
Finally, we acknowledge the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary possesses characteristics of a 
specialized knowledge employee consistent with the USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0 Ill, 
L-1 B Aqjudications Policy (Aug. 17, 2015), https:l/www.uscis.gov/laws/policy­
memoranda. Hovvever, the Petitioner has not submitted su!licient evidence to establish that the 
Beneficiary possesses 
knowledge that is advanced. While the Beneficiary may fill a role that is 
beneficial to his foreign employer and may be beneficial to the Petitioner's competitiveness in the 
marketplace, this characteristic alone is not probative of his specialized knowledge. As noted in the 
memorandum, the "characteristics" listed by the Petitioner are only "factors that USCIS may 
consider when determining whether . a beneficiary's knowledge is specialized." !d. The 
memorandum emphasizes that "ultimately, it is the weight and type of evidence that establishes 
whether the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge." !d. at 13. It is clear that the Petitioner 
considers the Beneficiary a valuable employee who excels at his position. However, as explained 
above, the record does not sufficiently distinguish the Beneficiary's knowledge from that of other 
similarly employed workers within the employing organization or within the Petitioner's industry. 
For the foregoing reasons, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary possesses an "advanced" 
level of knowledge. 
Mauer of V-. Inc. 
B. Special Knowledge 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has "special" knowledge based on the length of 
time the Beneficiary spent "in a lead technical position" developing the Petitioner's "healthcarc 
industry software products." 
Because "special knowledge" concerns knowledge of the employing organization's products or 
services and its application in international markets, a petitioner may meet its burden through 
evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge that is distinct or uncommon in comparison to the 
knowledge of other similarly employed workers in the particular industry. Knowledge that is 
commonly held throughout a petitioner's industry or that can be easily imparted from one person to 
another is not considered specialized. 
Here, the Petitioner does not identify the products it claims the Beneficiary has developed or specify 
the Beneficiary's contributions towards product development. As the Petitioner has not met these 
basic criteria, we cannot conclude that the Beneficiary possesses "special" knowledge of his 
employer's products or services. 
In light of the above, we find that the Petitioner has not established that special knowledge is 
required to perform the Beneficiary's assigned duties or that his knowledge is distinct from that of 
other IT professionals in the healthcare industry and can be taught only through prior experience 
with the organization. The Petitioner does not adequately specify how the Beneficiary's knowledge 
is "special" or establish how and when the Beneficiary gained such knowledge. While the 
Beneficiary may be a valuable employee of the company and an experienced IT professional within 
the healthcare industry, the record lacks sufficient evidence to establish that his knowledge is 
"special," as defined in the Act and regulations. The Petitioner has submitted little evidence to set 
the Beneficiary's knowledge apart or to demonstrate that it is uncommon, noteworthy, or 
distinguished by some unusual quality. Due to these evidentiary deficiencies, the record does not 
establish that he possesses "special" knowledge. : 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence submitted does not establish that the Beneficiary 
possesses specialized knowledge, that he was employed abroad in a position involving specialized 
knowledge, qnd that he would be employed in the United States in a specialized knowledge capacity. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matlero(V-. Inc., ID# 1005610 (AAO Mar. 12, 2018) 
8